The Goat Pen

we didn't have alot of things in the 60's.

Look we both want the same thing. I'm sure 80% of all Americans would like to see the W.I.C. program decline in numbers - but you don't do that by telling a mother that she now has to find other ways to get formula for her child because she is now cut off.

You do it by providing an economy and job market that voluntarily removes them from W.I.C. (or any other income security program). And the plus side of that is you now have tax payers contributing into the system.

The ONLY way you grow the tax revenues is to either raise taxes or create more taxpayers. Our government solution right now is both and for the wrong reasons. They want to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans and increase the number of taxpayers by granting amnesty to 20 million Mexicans

But both cases do nothing to eliminate the root cause of our problems in this country and that is government dependency.

You reduce government dependency by changing the dynamic of why people are dependent on the government - and in the era of modern large government (post 1950) where income stability is an obligation of our federal and state governments, you are simply wasting your time attempting to elect politicians that are going to cut it out. Instead your time is better served on addressing why someone who graduates from high school in American can do no better than receive the minimum wage which is below the poverty line and grants them access to income stability programs provided by our government.

Hedge, if you had a high deductible plan or catastrophic plan, your rates will most likey go up. The ACA will not allow catastrophic plans to exist so you will pay more, but you'll have more coverage in case you get pregnant or have to go to rehab again.

eCat wrote:we didn't have alot of things in the 60's.

Look we both want the same thing. I'm sure 80% of all Americans would like to see the W.I.C. program decline in numbers - but you don't do that by telling a mother that she now has to find other ways to get formula for her child because she is now cut off.

You do it by providing an economy and job market that voluntarily removes them from W.I.C. (or any other income security program). And the plus side of that is you now have tax payers contributing into the system.

Thats crap.

We didn't have a government in the 1930s, or 40s or 50s that said "...hey, lets make sure there is enough jobs for all the single moms so we won't have to give them checks." No. Single moms KNEW there would BE no checks. They wanted help? They went to the Catholic Church, had the kid in secrecy, and gave it up for adoption. That was all the help they could get because they were smart enough to know that they were NOT the best think for their own child.

We have a Georgetown bitch Sandra Fluke who seems to think it is okay for me to subsidize (well pay for entirely) her oral contraceptives so she can ride the cock carrosel free-of-charge. Look I don't give a shit if she wants to fuck every single boy at Georgetown, just don't make me pay for your pills. You don't see me submit a claim to my health insurance company for a box of condoms?

This shit has to end eCat. We are making a stand now. DEFAULT. Shut down the government (and don't restart it) until you truly balance the budget (no more deficits) and end all the girly-girl, bullshit, pussy entitlements.

Bklyn wrote:A better plan would be to win the Senate in 2014 and the White House in '16. They've (almost) totally blown those chances by pulling this shit that they have and the accompanying optics associated with their constantly changing narrative. This was the wrong way to go about dismantling the ACA after the results of the 2008 election, the 2012 election and the Supremes decision. Horrible politics and horrible brand management.

The bad decision is evident by the cannibalizing that is going on within the party now. Wrong move at the wrong time.

2015 will be too late and everyone knows that.

Also, the 2010 and 2012 House of Representatives and Senate races were mostly to the Republicans. Has been that way since he passed ACA.

"If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." will be as notorious as "Read my lips, no new taxes"

eCat wrote:You reduce government dependency by changing the dynamic of why people are dependent on the government - and in the era of modern large government (post 1950) where income stability is an obligation of our federal and state governments, you are simply wasting your time attempting to elect politicians that are going to cut it out.

Not necessarily true. Here is an instance where some of our current elected politicians are less impressed with women getting master's degrees in babysitting because they feel that "credential" automatically qualifies them for a government pay increase.

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/177083/

People are starting to smarten up..... but it takes time to re-educate people who are brainwashed.

I really hope IB doesn't own a gun(s).

innocentbystander wrote:

eCat wrote:we didn't have alot of things in the 60's.

Look we both want the same thing. I'm sure 80% of all Americans would like to see the W.I.C. program decline in numbers - but you don't do that by telling a mother that she now has to find other ways to get formula for her child because she is now cut off.

You do it by providing an economy and job market that voluntarily removes them from W.I.C. (or any other income security program). And the plus side of that is you now have tax payers contributing into the system.

Thats crap.

We didn't have a government in the 1930s, or 40s or 50s that said "...hey, lets make sure there is enough jobs for all the single moms so we won't have to give them checks." No. Single moms KNEW there would BE no checks. They wanted help? They went to the Catholic Church, had the kid in secrecy, and gave it up for adoption. That was all the help they could get because they were smart enough to know that they were NOT the best think for their own child.

We have a Georgetown bitch Sandra Fluke who seems to think it is okay for me to subsidize (well pay for entirely) her oral contraceptives so she can ride the cock carrosel free-of-charge. Look I don't give a shit if she wants to fuck every single boy at Georgetown, just don't make me pay for your pills. You don't see me submit a claim to my health insurance company for a box of condoms?

This shit has to end eCat. We are making a stand now. DEFAULT. Shut down the government (and don't restart it) until you truly balance the budget (no more deficits) and end all the girly-girl, bullshit, pussy entitlements.

no, what we had was the largest % of people earning union wages in the history of this country that led to a burgeoning middle class in post world war II 50's. Because of the economic boom resulting in tax revenues, we also had the largest expansion of infrastructure being creating in this country to date. We had an education system that created people capable of finding a job in a manufacturing plant...and while I don't have any numbers to support, I suspect a much higher number of gainfully employed Americans, whether its industrial or agricultural - meant a lower number of single moms and more households with married parents.

The rest of you stuff is just fox news craziness. You don't get it - You *think* you're taking a stand, but those single mothers? those folks making minimum wage and working dead end jobs looking to the government for help? Combine them with hard core democrats, and a latino population exploding as anti-GOP and you're not doing jack shit except giving lip service to ideals that sound great to a guy worried busting his ass working a job to keep a suburban home over his head and a new toyota camry in the driveway, but there aren't enough of him to allow the Tea Party guys to make noise -and the truth is ,even if there was, they ideal of small government is a large government funding the projects they believe in. The people that think like you are outnumbered, and its only going to get worse- much worse in the immediate future. The house conservatives may have the ability to shut down the government but at the end of the day, which constituents are they serving? Will those people gain them the White House in 2016?

besides, why would you not be for making gainful employment for a much larger percentage of Americans? Your taking stand is just to rip benefits away from people who will refuse to slink off and die in some cave. They're not going to say , oh, I don't have W.I.C., ok, I'll go to college for 4 years and get a job as an accountant. They have to feed those kids now. You're inviting chaos and furthering decline of our society - which is what you are think you are taking a stand for in the first place.

The biggest problem with self proclaimed conservatives like you is you want to turn America back to 1950 society while maintaining 2010 economics.

I'm sure you saying women should stop having kids and then using an example of why we shouldn't provide them with condoms makes sense to you - to others on the outside looking in - its just madness

IB wrote:I'm guessing you lack a lot of things. Inclination to do the simplest task is not the least of them.

Heh. Oh snap! You told me! If only explaining things to you were "the simplest task." I've learned my lesson and have made quite the career following simple rules about dealing with people and my time.

Anyway.

Sardis

I still beg to differ. Considering the pain points that are likely to exist, if eCat's statements are accurate, fundamentally changing or eliminating the ACA is not something that would be too late by 2015. It's an entitlement, so I guess I know what you are saying, but it has so many soft edges that a working Hill could make massive changes to it the right way. Nothing that is going on now is helping the debt or deficit and certainly is not hurting the prospects of the ACA.

Defaulting on our debt is stupid, also. Stupid.

Bklyn wrote:

IB wrote:I'm guessing you lack a lot of things. Inclination to do the simplest task is not the least of them.

Heh. Oh snap! You told me! If only explaining things to you were "the simplest task." I've learned my lesson and have made quite the career following simple rules about dealing with people and my time.

Anyway.

Sardis

I still beg to differ. Considering the pain points that are likely to exist, if eCat's statements are accurate, fundamentally changing or eliminating the ACA is not something that would be too late by 2015. It's an entitlement, so I guess I know what you are saying, but it has so many soft edges that a working Hill could make massive changes to it the right way. Nothing that is going on now is helping the debt or deficit and certainly is not hurting the prospects of the ACA.

Defaulting on our debt is stupid, also. Stupid.

Ultimately I went with an HSA plan and dropped PPO. It does result in a monthly savings on premiums but I now have a 3K deductible that I can put money into pre-tax. Assuming my family just deals with the standard colds and bruises for 2014, I should break even compared to last year. So there is a definite incentive to stay healthy (or more to the point - avoid going to the doctor) because there is a potential for savings next year as my money rolls over if the deductible isn't met. This plan was offered last year so its not due to an ACA, but the cost increases in the PPO plan which will be dropped next year due to ACA pretty much makes this a no brainer. However, if we have any major surgery for the year, I'll be looking at an additional $9K out of pocket. I realize its not entirely fair to compare that since I've yet to have major surgery however in the past I paid and had access to coverage that didn't require that - which I opted for as being a family of 4. Assuming modern medicine keeps its promises, I will not have any more childbirth associated costs in my future.

Toemeesleather wrote:http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world ... s-bay-area

best line of that article

""Of course, I want people to have health care," Vinson said. "I just didn't realize I would be the
one who was going to pay for it personally.""

"However, if we have any major surgery for the year, I'll be looking at an additional $9K out of pocket."

I thought out of pocket was capped under ACA?

hedge wrote:"However, if we have any major surgery for the year, I'll be looking at an additional $9K out of pocket."

I thought out of pocket was capped under ACA?

I'm not part of the exchange, but the ACA caps family at $12,700

eCat wrote:no, what we had was the largest % of people earning union wages in the history of this country that led to a burgeoning middle class in post world war II 50's. Because of the economic boom resulting in tax revenues, we also had the largest expansion of infrastructure being creating in this country to date. We had an education system that created people capable of finding a job in a manufacturing plant...and while I don't have any numbers to support, I suspect a much higher number of gainfully employed Americans, whether its industrial or agricultural - meant a lower number of single moms and more households with married parents.

The rest of you stuff is just fox news craziness. You don't get it - You *think* you're taking a stand, but those single mothers? those folks making minimum wage and working dead end jobs looking to the government for help? Combine them with hard core democrats, and a latino population exploding as anti-GOP and you're not doing jack shit except giving lip service to ideals that sound great to a guy worried busting his ass working a job to keep a suburban home over his head and a new toyota camry in the driveway, but there aren't enough of him to allow the Tea Party guys to make noise -and the truth is ,even if there was, they ideal of small government is a large government funding the projects they believe in. The people that think like you are outnumbered, and its only going to get worse- much worse in the immediate future. The house conservatives may have the ability to shut down the government but at the end of the day, which constituents are they serving? Will those people gain them the White House in 2016?

besides, why would you not be for making gainful employment for a much larger percentage of Americans? Your taking stand is just to rip benefits away from people who will refuse to slink off and die in some cave. They're not going to say , oh, I don't have W.I.C., ok, I'll go to college for 4 years and get a job as an accountant. They have to feed those kids now. You're inviting chaos and furthering decline of our society - which is what you are think you are taking a stand for in the first place.

The biggest problem with self proclaimed conservatives like you is you want to turn America back to 1950 society while maintaining 2010 economics.

I'm sure you saying women should stop having kids and then using an example of why we shouldn't provide them with condoms makes sense to you - to others on the outside looking in - its just madness

eCat, in 1950, the whole world had been bombed to smitherines. Europe was smoldering ruin, factories just busted down to rubble and silence. And there were no plants/factories in Asia for the 13 year old malaysian girls to work at to make toys for our kids...

So OF COURSE unions and labour had real power in the United States. You bought expensively made, American made, or you didn't get anything. There were no alternatives. And the infrastructure of which you speak was the International Highway system (the biggest government subsidy for any industry ever in the history of government subsidies.) Fuck we had old, useless, construction farts, work on the tiniest stretch of I-95 (rt 128) in Boston, lolly-gagged it for 10 years and fucking retired!

Fast forward to today. Asia is filled with manufacturing power. And manufacturing jobs are well defined (they don't require a lot of thinking so 13 year old girls can do them) or those that do require thinking (such as assembling tiny Apple products) your typical, union, brain-dead worker in the United States does not have the education or the cognitive ability to perform them. So, unions and labor have NO POWER in this country anymore. The world is flat. And getting flatter.

The W.I.C. girls, most of them need to give their kids up for adoption. That way people who CAN support children (but can't have any due to infertility) wont have to import them from China, Russia, India, or Guatamala. Adopt kids right here. Oh we can't do that because there aren't any to adopt because the baby mamas kept them all because the government gives them a check AND an apartment (on our tax dollars.)

See the problem here? We're fucked eCat. I hope LBJ is burning in Hell for what he (and all his entitlement programs that altered human behavior) did to our kids.

Can I interest you in a sawed off shotgun IB?

you have to convince the american population they are better off working

those who choose to work who make more then a 100k with minimal dependants dont need much convincing

those who make 50-100k with dependants generally do so due to good upbringing/pride/not willing to take a handout/hoping to get higher up the food chain--thats the group we are losing due to crappy jobs, higher costs, cant get promoted, jobs being outsourced etc.

less then 50 K give it up and just get all the disability, foodstam[s, welfare, healcare you can cause your hosed for the most part working your ass of for minimum return--let them eat cake.

fucking upper 1% just continue to absorb more and more of this nations wealth leaving the middle and bottom to fight for the scraps that are left and the politicians to have to expand government and provide assistance to those scrapfighters--furthering their own agenda by insuring they now get more votes.

some day it explodes into a new depression with the civil unrest that goes with it

Why does crash hate overachievers?

crashcourse wrote:you have to convince the american population they are better off working

those who choose to work who make more then a 100k with minimal dependants dont need much convincing

those who make 50-100k with dependants generally do so due to good upbringing/pride/not willing to take a handout/hoping to get higher up the food chain--thats the group we are losing due to crappy jobs, higher costs, cant get promoted, jobs being outsourced etc.

less then 50 K give it up and just get all the disability, foodstam[s, welfare, healcare you can cause your hosed for the most part working your ass of for minimum return--let them eat cake.

fucking upper 1% just continue to absorb more and more of this nations wealth leaving the middle and bottom to fight for the scraps that are left and the politicians to have to expand government and provide assistance to those scrapfighters--furthering their own agenda by insuring they now get more votes.

some day it explodes into a new depression with the civil unrest that goes with it

I don't think its a matter of convincing, its just a matter of basic math - at some point we do have to say - if you are capable, then you will work and will not receive income security from the government, but right now we have millions of capable people that are working - and still getting income security from the government. It can't be universal but until we get to the point that you go out and get a job, and can expect to live off that job (whatever living is - usually that means a rant from someone like IB who says that people who work at Wal Mart think they are entitled to 60" flat screen TV's and Iphones) then you can't tell people to work for a living - most of 'em are working. Its how you reconcile the reported unemployment number versus the number of people applying for income security in some format. Its obvious that business like Wal-Mart and others have a business model that expects the taxpayer to make up the difference between there employee's wage and the cost of living.

I know its hard for people to grasp but we have to get past this idea that the guy working at Subway or Target or whatever hasn't done anything to deserve a living wage. These aren't kids at these jobs anymore, the average age is around 27 years old, and they've come to accept working below the poverty line, and then getting two checks. One from their employer and one from the government. We're just not going to turn 30 -50 million Americans in this country into Engineers, Accountants, Dental Assistants, whatever overnight. Matter of fact we're never going to do it and we have to address what plentiful work is out there in a service economy and what we need to do about getting Americans to be financial self sustaining.
Until we accept that we aren't going to reduce the rolls of government dependency.

fucking upper 1% just continue to absorb more and more of this nations wealth leaving the middle and bottom to fight for the scraps that are left and the politicians to have to expand government and provide assistance to those scrapfighters--furthering their own agenda by insuring they now get more votes



Jeez, I missed something big, when did the US economy become a zero sum game?

Single moms NEVER had access to welfare or public housing until the 1960s. They knew then that if you pay for something you get more of it.

What???? No wonder your ideas are so whack. They are based on fundamentally wrong premise. Aid for dependent children was started with the Social Security Act in 1935.

Owlman wrote:Single moms NEVER had access to welfare or public housing until the 1960s. They knew then that if you pay for something you get more of it.

What???? No wonder your ideas are so whack. They are based on fundamentally wrong premise. Aid for dependent children was started with the Social Security Act in 1935.

IN 1935, not ALL single moms qualified. In fact very few (almost none) did, social workers got to subjectively pick and choose who did and who did not...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aid_to_Fam ... t_Children

ADC dispensed scant relief to poor single mothers. The federal government authorized case workers, supervisors, and administrators with discretion to determine who received aid and how much. ADC was primarily created for white single mothers who were expected not to work. Black mothers who had always been in the labor force were not considered eligible to receive benefits.[3] The words "families with" were added to the name in 1962, partly due to concern that the program's rules discouraged marriage.[4]

The Civil Rights Movement and the efforts of the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO) in the 1960's expanded the scope of welfare entitlements to include Black women. The welfare rolls racial demographics changed drastically. The majority of welfare recipients still remained white and most Black women recipients continued to work.[5]

Starting in 1962, the Department of Health and Human Services allowed state-specific exemptions as long as the change was "in the spirit of AFDC" in order to allow some experimentation. By 1996 spending was $24 billion per year. When adjusted for inflation, the highest spending was in 1976, which exceeded 1996 spending by about 8%.

Pretty much any single moms qualify now, federally. But it is now TANF (temporary.) You want perminant, multi-generational welfare and public housing for the single moms and their bastard kids, you get that from the states (not the Fed) and they've only been doing that since the 1960s.

And EVEN THEN... you wanted a check, there be better be a man in the house....

Lucy A. Williams and Jean Hardisty point to the existence of policies reacting to this perceived problem in some states such as "man-in-the-house" rule:


States had wide discretion to determine eligibility and many states conditioned the receipt of welfare on the sexual morality of the mother, using "suitable home" and "man in the house" rules to disqualify many African American single mothers. The Right's Campaign Against Welfare

The "man-in-the-house" rule was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1968 (see King v. Smith).

Apparently men aren't needed anymore. Women can just Marry government.